Data Proc. Fin. Gen. v. Int'l Bus. Mach

2 Citing cases

  1. Mills v. United Producers, Inc.

    Case Number 11-13148-BC (E.D. Mich. May. 14, 2012)   Cited 1 times

    Def.'s Mot. to Strike ΒΆ 6. In support, Defendant cites decisions of the Second Circuit, the Eighth Circuit, and a Kentucky district court. Def.'s Br. Supp. Mot. to Strike 5-6 (citing Lipsky v Commonwealth United Corp., 551 F.2d 887 (2d Cir. 1976); Data Processing Fin. & Gen. Corp. v. IBM, 430 F.2d 1277 (8th Cir. 1970) (per curiam); and Hyland v. Homeservices of Am. Inc., No. 3:05-cv-612-R, 2007 WL 1959157 (W.D. Ky. June 28, 2007)). As Plaintiff succinctly observes, however, Defendant's argument is foreclosed by Sixth Circuit precedent. Pl.'s Resp. to Def.'s Mot. 6-7 (citing United States v. Cohen, 946 F.2d 430 (6th Cir. 1991)).

  2. Metrix Warehouse, Inc. v. Daimler-Benz Aktiengesellschaft

    555 F. Supp. 824 (D. Md. 1983)

    E.g., Baush Machine Tool Co. v. Aluminum Co. of America, 79 F.2d 217, 226 (2d Cir. 1935); Cinema Service Corp. v. Twentieth Century-Fox Film Corp., 477 F.Supp. 174, 178 (W.D.Pa. 1979); Kunc v. ARA Services, Inc., 414 F.Supp. 809, 812 (W.D.Okla. 1976); Control Data Corp. v. International Business Machines Corp., 306 F.Supp. 839, 843 (D.Minn. 1969), aff'd, 430 F.2d 1277 (8th Cir. 1970). The purpose of excluding consent decrees from the scope of Section 5(a) of the Clayton Act, and from use as evidence in subsequent cases, is to encourage the use of consent decrees to settle antitrust suits.